OT - What the hell are we coming to?

Page 6 of 6  
On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 10:52:14 -0700 (PDT), the infamous Nahmie

Kin ewe say "Speaking Weasels"? I knew you could. <sigh>
-- It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change. -- Charles Darwin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I saw an article on Phelps years ago that quoted a couple of family members (his kids I think) who had broken away from the cult. They said he is literally addicted to hate, it's his reason for living. Reading about his life makes it clear he is barking-at-the-moon crazy, yet he has a vicious cunning that has allowed him to get away with a lot, including staying out of jail. A lingering death from an especially painful disease would be too good for him, he's a living example of why every so often it's good to throw a little bleach in the gene pool.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
An interesting article. One question I have - wasn't the family warned of a potential demonstration before the service? It sounds like this is a fairly normal circumstance at this particular church.
It goes against every thing I believe in. I do believe in freedom of speech, but a religious ceremony, especially a funeral, should be a hallowed situation. I can't believe any church would condone this type of activity. It becomes doubly repugnant at a military man's funeral service.
--
______________________________
Keep the whole world singing . . . .
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/3/2010 10:39 PM, DanG wrote:

It is idiots like these whose actions result in bad legislation intended to address breaches of courtesy that should not have occurred and that if they occurred should have been handled by those present, preferably with the aid of tar and feathers. However remonstrating forcibly with the terminally discourteous is now likely to land you in jail.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Right. IMO the best way to deal with this would be legislation that explicitly exempts the appropriate response from prosecution for assault and battery.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Doug Miller" wrote:

------------------------------------------ Go for the money.
Turn the gov't audit folks loose.
IRS, RICO, etc.
Force these clowns to spend themselves into oblivion defending themselves.
Seek legal methods to seize their assets, etc, etc.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm not a US citizen, but I suspect that would require a constitutional amendment.
As abhorrent as Phelps and his cult is, the right to free speech applies as long as they are on public property.
What happened in Canada was that were denied entry, a right any sovereign nation has. They weren't denied the right to free speech.
Free speech doesn't mean "speech that I don't find offensive".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Doubtful.

I'm not proposing that the law should restrict in any way their right to say whatever they want, wherever or whenever they want to. I'm just saying that if what they say is grossly offensive, they should not expect the law to shield them from a well-deserved beating at the hands of those whom they offended.

I'm not proposing to shut them up. But if you say something deserving of a punch in the snoot, you shouldn't be surprised -- nor should you expect protection of the law -- when someone punches you in the snoot.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Gotcha.
Somebody gets to decide what speech is offensive, but that in no way limits free speech.
And you see no problem with that.
This will be my final post on this thread. It hits the kill-file now.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/04/2010 07:51 AM, Doug Miller wrote:

Who decides what deserves a punch in the snoot?
If a little guy says something (maybe even true) that a big guy finds offensive, the big guy is allowed to punch him in the snoot without legal repercussions?
You don't think this will have a chilling effect? Isn't this "might makes right" by another name?
Chris
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

IMO, ideally, a jury.

The law used to recognize the concept of "fighting words". I think it still should.

My state (Indiana) is frequently made sport of as being "backward". Some of that, I admit, is deserved. But when our current state Constitution was written, 160 years ago, they managed to get most things right, and some of them IMO a little better than in the national Constitution. Here's one:
"No law shall be passed, restraining the free interchange of thought and opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print, freely, on any subject whatever: but for the abuse of that right, every person shall be responsible." [Constitution of the State of Indiana, Article I, Section 9]
The members of the Westboro Baptist "Church" are, IMHO, grossly abusing their right to free speech. And for that abuse, they should be held responsible.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/5/2010 1:19 PM, Doug Miller wrote:

I think we're all over-analyzing this. Free speech has boundaries and these boundaries are well established as a matter of law:
- Speech may not be used to constitute an act of threat or force. That's why yelling "Fire" inappropriately in a crowded theater is not protected speech. That's why threatening someone's life - even if you don't do it - can be considered "forceful" if you have the means to carry out your threat.
- The right to free expression does not carry with it the right to make other people listen to you or to otherwise disturb the peace. That's why it's OK for the gummint to require some level of decorum and order during, say, a protest march. The speech itself is protected, but the environment in which the speech is conducted must (or should, anyway) be lawful. Just because some ugly hippie chick wants to run naked in the street to protest whatever the cause-of-the-moment might be, doesn't mean she gets to do so.
It is under this second constraint that the Phelps of the world should be arrested, prosecuted, found guilty, fined out of existence, and sent to jail for awhile. A funeral is a private event with private participants. Phelps and the rest of his sewage are free to speak their piece BUT not if they are invading private property and/or disturbing such a private event.
Unfortunately, these people are untouchable for a number of reasons: 1) Our entire notion of rights balanced with responsibilities to use those right appropriately has more-or-less vanished. 2) The political right is too chicken to act in such matters because they'll be accused of attempting to suppress anti-war/anti-warrior speech. 3) The left - as usual- is useless and is only too happy to stand by, hiding behind a phony understanding of free speech - because they think Phelps and Co. discredit the right. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/5/2010 12:38 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:

What's wrong with chilling effects?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

MONTCOAL W.V. Protesters from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., headed to the Upper Big Branch mine Thursday morning to convey the message that the explosion there that left 25 miners dead was a result of e-mail messages allegedly sent from West Virginia threatening the Church and its publisher, according to a statement from the Church.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://www.fark.com/cgi/vidplayer.pl?IDLink=5148987
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 05:38:50 -0700, Robatoy wrote:

index.htm...
Having known some of the fine folk that reside in Appalachia, I wonder if the protesters will all be coming back :-). Dare I hope not?
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

This should be worth following. Those good working folk really aren't as tolerant of the right of the protester's to have free speech as some others. Perhaps Obama should intervene with a heart-felt apology for the nasty email sent to the religious folk, and a condemnation of the miners. <sarcasm intended>
--
Nonny
Suppose you were an idiot.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Robatoy" wrote:

----------------------------------------- Some of those Church folks just might end up going up some of those "hollers" and not coming back.
Gets a little dark at night in "West By God" when the moon's not out.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You can only poke a dog with a stick for so long until even the sweetest dog will bite.
--
Nonny
Suppose you were an idiot.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.